Sins of a Solar Empire v1.82 Change Log

Sins of a Solar Empire v1.82 Change Log

Ironclad Games and Stardock Entertainment are pleased to announce the release of the v1.82 version for Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion. This update is largely designed to address balance issues with the Stellar Phenomena DLC, but also contains several other fixes.

Change Log:

[ Stellar Phenomena DLC ]

Halved asteroidCounts on Graveyard and DenseDebris templates in AsteroidDef to improve performance.

Reduced fleet point range on Open Rebellion event from 150/350 to 100/250.

Increased volume on random event warning sound by 3db.

Dramatically shortened Pulsar particle so that it doesn't touch other gravity wells and made the tails less sharp.

Removed Fighters from target list on Gas Giant's pre-explode buff since they can never lose it; will still take damage from nearby explosions.

Added new Commodity Boom random event: one random planet (including neutrals) may now undergo a resource boom where extractor and refinery rates are increased by 30% for 5 minutes. Should never appear on: Dead Asteroids, Pirate Bases, Antimatter Fountains, Magnetic Clouds or Wormholes. (Thanks to Goafan for the suggestion!)

[ Forbidden Worlds DLC ]

Removed 'Ferrus' from PlanetRandomUncolonizable in GalaxyScenarioDefs.

Removed 'FerrusFair' from PlanetRandomUncolonizableFair in GalaxyScenarioDefs.

Thanks for noticing. The colored circle giving away planet ownership even with no scouting/presence (http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/455080/page/1/#3472235) should probably also be tagged as needing fix, if it hasn't been already. (I just found out about it.) Almost certainly an engine issue that should be easy to fix in the compiled code, but seems hopeless for modders.

The same goes for extractors changing their color from grey to white in the info card; that also give away ownership info (albeit less precisely) early in the game, also without scouting.

should probably also be tagged as needing fix, if it hasn't been already. (I just found out about it.) Almost certainly an engine issue that should be easy to fix in the compiled code, but seems hopeless for modders.

NO, please don't do that, basically that's the only way to know who owns the planet. If the game reaches mid-game status, there is microscopically small chance for you to reveal what's going on on those enemy worlds that you don't even know who controls. This colored circle is the only way to know which AI is the stronger one and where to find their planets. Your scouts cannot pass the hangars, starbases, phase jump inhibitors, and AI's surely like to build these in bigger numbers everywhere on the map. Scouting late game is already extremely hard if you play against AI, it would make things much worse.

Quoting RespawnedTitanL10, reply 27should probably also be tagged as needing fix, if it hasn't been already. (I just found out about it.) Almost certainly an engine issue that should be easy to fix in the compiled code, but seems hopeless for modders.

NO, please don't do that, basically that's the only way to know who owns the planet. If the game reaches mid-game status, there is microscopically small chance for you to reveal what's going on on those enemy worlds that you don't even know who controls. This colored circle is the only way to know which AI is the stronger one and where to find their planets. Your scouts cannot pass the hangars, starbases, phase jump inhibitors, and AI's surely like to build these in bigger numbers everywhere on the map. Scouting late game is already extremely hard if you play against AI, it would make things much worse.

Well, my games vs. the AI hardly ever last that long, but if what you say is true, the fix for the late game scouting difficulty is surely not keeping two early game bugs that render scouting less necessary by leaking ownership info. For the late game problem you identified, some late-game scouting techs could probably be added (besides the early/mid-game scout buffing research), although as someone suggested in that thread, the temp. invulnerability of envoys is a workaround for difficulties with scouting with actual scouts. (And you can better afford envoys later in the game.)

If the devs really intended for any player to know when any other player [not just an ally] colonized a planet or took a resource extractor (regardless of scouting), they could have added an audible event/message for that. Perhaps adding a game option to remove the fog of war completely (like the replays have) might appease those players who are bothered by the late game scouting problem. Removing the fog of war is an option in some RTS and even in some more pretentious combat sim games (Combat Mission comes to mind.)

That's just plain not true. A lategame scenario means you have a large and flexible income to invest in some more creative intelligence options than just "try to send one scout at a time."

I know you can send more, I am not stupid. But how many scouts do you need to bypass several heavily defended AI worlds? Or do you have the time to wait for your envoys to reach those far-away worlds? And don't forget they are not invincible forever. Meanwhile you need to manually control them, and in active battles you rarely have the time to do something like this.

In singleplayer you have plenty of time to issue unlimited APS. You can pause and issue orders in this game like most RTS. I probably wouldn't be playing it if I couldn't do this, managing large scale games efficiently would require too much technical skill. I'm more interested in the decision-making aspect of gameplay.

In singleplayer you have plenty of time to issue unlimited APS. You can pause and issue orders in this game like most RTS. I probably wouldn't be playing it if I couldn't do this, managing large scale games efficiently would require too much technical skill. I'm more interested in the decision-making aspect of gameplay.

For me pausing takes away from this game, instead of adding anything. True, it can help, but I'd rather not do it, would ruin the game for me I guess. If I wanted a TBS where I have plenty of time to do everything I would play Endless Space or something, but I don't always feel like that.

Hmm, I don't seem to have much issue scouting the AI. A fair sized group of scouts (half dozen or little more) or even Corvettes should be able to slip through most planetary defenses. Now, if the AI has its fleet in the way... you're right, that's a different story. For that, I find sending a small fleet contingent made up of things I don't mind losing is great for this. Preferably, seems I should already know where in the grav well the enemy fleet is due to lost scouts, I would jump the smaller fleet in on the opposite side, then give them some running orders. Once the enemy fleet has taken the bait, jump my scouts through.

Hmm, I don't seem to have much issue scouting the AI. A fair sized group of scouts (half dozen or little more) or even Corvettes should be able to slip through most planetary defenses. Now, if the AI has its fleet in the way... you're right, that's a different story. For that, I find sending a small fleet contingent made up of things I don't mind losing is great for this. Preferably, seems I should already know where in the grav well the enemy fleet is due to lost scouts, I would jump the smaller fleet in on the opposite side, then give them some running orders. Once the enemy fleet has taken the bait, jump my scouts through.

And how do you do that far away from your own empire? Where fighters (from starbases, minifleets of the AI and hangars) cause much trouble and you cannot send instant reinforcements?

Out of all the issues with this game, SCOUTING is the one you guys choose to complain about? LMAO!!!!!

TBH I agree with you, this colored circle thing is not even near top priority as only a few people noticed it, few people want to change it even if it has no real game changing value, and would make life a bit harder for some players who know this exists and are actively using it to track the expansion of the AI.

Does anyone know why the AI Vasari is still so useless as an ally? Why does it never build starbases even if he has the constructor at his frontline world, sometimes even 2? In many games I lose because he is crashed before I can set up my economy and fleet, only because he could not even build one starbase that could have saved his ass...... Basically if I want a good team game I have to make sure my ally is not Vasari.

Vasari AI is likely not programmed to build starbases any more frequently than the other races, despite Vasari SBs being far more integral to their strategy in MP than SBs are to the other two races.

That said I've had no issues with Vasari AI allies. I've never had one wiped out before I have built up enough to start conquering the enemies nearest to me, and several times they've had their enemies already on the ropes by the time I get any forces over to them.

Vasari AI is likely not programmed to build starbases any more frequently than the other races, despite Vasari SBs being far more integral to their strategy in MP than SBs are to the other two races.

That said I've had no issues with Vasari AI allies. I've never had one wiped out before I have built up enough to start conquering the enemies nearest to me, and several times they've had their enemies already on the ropes by the time I get any forces over to them.

Good for you, in many games of mine where the Vasari faces an Advent or TEC early, the only solution would be to starbase one of his worlds, but he cannot do it and gets overspammed. But if I face a Vasari, lol he has maxed out Orkies everywhere. Can there be this much difference between these two unfair AI's just because one is an ally?

Yes, there are some that are better at it than others. Check out the Artificial Unintelligence Mod thread in the modding section. The guy who did that also gave a very detailed break down of all his AI tweak findings, including how good (or bad) some of those settings are in various situations (including which race they are).

Yes, there are some that are better at it than others. Check out the Artificial Unintelligence Mod thread in the modding section. The guy who did that also gave a very detailed break down of all his AI tweak findings, including how good (or bad) some of those settings are in various situations (including which race they are).

Yes I noticed that thread, but did not realise this might be the source of this problem. But thanks for pointing out, I will definitely read it again.

Elsewhere there was pointed out a bug with the Maw in that it was attracting frigates in but only actually devouring some of them, resulting in the extras being "spit" out the back of the VL Titan. I don't know if it was intended (it seems to me like it shouldn't be?), but I see where in the code as to why it happens.

For the instantAction that applies the buff BuffTheMawConvertTarget, it has a max target count of 15/30. The next instantAction that applies BuffTheMawAttractTarget, has a max target count of -1/-1. This is what causes that behavior.

An additional thing that might be worth looking at... both of them also have different values for their coneAngle (meaning frigates can be hit with the "convert" buff that are not being hit with the "attract" buff).

Elsewhere there was pointed out a bug with the Maw in that it was attracting frigates in but only actually devouring some of them, resulting in the extras being "spit" out the back of the VL Titan. I don't know if it was intended (it seems to me like it shouldn't be?), but I see where in the code as to why it happens.

Pastebin link: BuffTheMawSelf.entity

For the instantAction that applies the buff BuffTheMawConvertTarget, it has a max target count of 15/30. The next instantAction that applies BuffTheMawAttractTarget, has a max target count of -1/-1. This is what causes that behavior.

An additional thing that might be worth looking at... both of them also have different values for their coneAngle (meaning frigates can be hit with the "convert" buff that are not being hit with the "attract" buff).

They decided to nerf maw by limiting the number of ships it can destroy. You can't limit the attract buff though as some ships may be destroyed by normal weapons first, so in a sense yes it is intended. Think of it as the Vorastra's mouthing only being able to chew so much.

Yeah, I know they limited how much it chews. But they didn't limit how much it pulls, resulting in what others have reported in that it spits the ships out "whole" through its rear. Further, the cone of angle for the "chew" is actually wider than that of the pull....

Re-studying the files, though, it looks like it'll take more than a simple text change to fix it. First, the convert buff is applied once. This means new ships that enter the area affected will be pulled, but not chewed, even if it didn't hit its max, yet.

Second, aside from one time shots (instantAction), there is no way for it to track cumulative targets affected. IE, if on first application there were only 5 targets, but on another application there's another 5 targets, it'll still see it as 5 targets, not 10 total.